Orissa High Court
Sekh Basir vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3320 of 2025
Sekh Basir ........ Petitioner
Mr. Manoranjan Padhy, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
06.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR/ Dated Police Case No. and Sections
PR Station Courts' Name
No.
219 21.08.2020 Jeypore T.R. Case Section
Town No.52(B) of 2020 20(b)(ii)(C)/
arising out of 29 of NDPS
Jeypore Town P.S. Act
pending in the
court of learned
Sessions Judge-
cum-Special
Judge, Korapur,
At- Jeypore
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with T.R. Case
No.52(B) of 2020 arising out of Jeypore Town P.S. No.219 of
2020 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Korapur, At- Jeypore, has filed the present
application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered
for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that on the Police received an
information regarding transportation of contraband 'Ganja' in a
TATA ACE Vehicle bearing registration No.OD-10-H-2557 on
NH 326 from Boipariguda to jeypore Town. Thereafter, they
proceeded to the aforesaid place and after a while at about 10:00
A.M, they found the said vehicle was coming from Boipariguda
side being escorted by one person. Police detained the vehicle
and found two occupants were there, on being searched,
recovered 42 number of gunny bags containing 1046 Kgs. of
contraband 'Ganja'.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband
ganja. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection
whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the
prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody
since 21.08.2020. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be
released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him
to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right
to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every
under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This
principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State
of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where
applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that
criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable
promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion
of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker
sections of society and often lack access to competent legal
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by
the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the
accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand
does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this
right.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v.
State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that
incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching
consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata.
It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family
structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in
such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts
irreparable harm--especially if the accused is ultimately
acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to
these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those
arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are
prioritized and concluded expeditiously.
8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
is greater than commercial quantity weighing 1046 kgs. In such
premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve for
bail.
9. At the heart of this petition lies a request for bail in a case
involving alleged possession and transportation of commercial
quantity of Ganja, precisely 1046 kgs as per the seizure report.
The law under the NDPS Act draws a firm line when it comes
to such quantities. The threshold for judicial discretion in
granting bail under Section 37 is significantly higher than in
ordinary offences. The Court is bound to be satisfied, on
reasonable grounds, not only that the accused is not guilty of
the offence but also that he is not likely to commit a similar
offence while on bail.
10. It is well settled that bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act,
particularly for commercial quantities, is governed by a more
stringent test. In the case of Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh
@ Pappu3 the Supreme Court reiterated the stance that no
person accused of trading commercial quantity of narcotics is
liable to be released on bail unless Court is satisfied of
2023 SCC OnLine SC 346
reasonable grounds proving innocence. The relevant excerpts
are produced below:
"16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no
person accused of an offence involving trade in
commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on
bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.
17. The quantity of "ganja" recovered is admittedly of
commercial quantity. The High Court has not recorded
any finding that the respondent-accused is not prima
facie guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely
to commit the same offence when enlarged on bail rather
his antecedents are indicative that he is a regular
offender. In the absence of recording of such satisfaction
by the court, we are of the opinion that the High Court
manifestly erred in enlarging the respondent-accused on
bail."
11. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the
parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court
finds that the ganja seized from the possession of the present
Petitioner does not come within the purview of commercial
quantity. At this juncture, looking to the provision under Section
37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court finds that there is a bar for
release of the present Petitioner.
12. This Court, therefore, declines to entertain the prayer of the
present Petitioner.
13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being dismissed.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
